[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 17-15098

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

Agency No. A205-265-983

ALEXIS MACIAS TORRES, 

MARIA REMEDIOS TORRES MAGANA,

Petitioners,

versus

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

__________________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

_________________________

(July 16, 2018)

Before TJOFLAT, MARCUS, and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Case: 17-15098 Date Filed: 07/16/2018 Page: 1 of 6 
2

The petitioners, Maria Remedios Torres Magana and Alexias Marcia Torres, 

are mother and son. They are natives of Mexico. On July 29, 2014, the two 

arrived at Laredo, Texas and applied for admission to enter the United States. 

Neither of them had a valid entry document at the time they sought admission and 

were therefore inadmissible.1

 They were accordingly ruled to be removable from 

the United States. In an attempt to avoid removal, the petitioners sought relief 

from removal through asylum,2 withholding of removal,3 and protection under the 

Convention against Torture (“CAT”).4

 The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denied relief 

and the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirmed that denial. The 

petitioners have appealed the BIA’s decision. 

The Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) permits an alien to apply for 

asylum “within 1 year after the date of the alien’s arrival in the United States.” 8 

U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B); INA § 208(a)(2)(B). The petitioners, however, waited 

almost two years to seek asylum. The IJ and BIA therefore refused to consider the 

petition for asylum as untimely.5

 The INA strips us of jurisdiction to review a 

 

1 See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I); Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”)

§ 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I).

2 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(1); INA § 208(a)(1).

3 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A); INA § 241(b)(3)(A). 

4 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c). 

5 In so ruling, they determined that the petitioners failed to qualify for one of the two 

exceptions to the time bar. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D); INA § 208(a)(2)(D) (providing that an 

alien may file an untimely application for asylum “if the alien demonstrates to the satisfaction of 

Case: 17-15098 Date Filed: 07/16/2018 Page: 2 of 6 
3

determination of the Attorney General that an asylum claim is time barred. 8 

U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3); INA § 208(a)(3).

6 As a result, we do not have jurisdiction to 

review the BIA’s determination that the petitioners filed an untimely asylum 

petition. 

We turn to the remaining issue7 in the petitioners’ brief on appeal: 

withholding of removal.8

 We review the IJ’s and BIA’s legal conclusions de novo. 

Mohammed v. Ashcroft, 261 F.3d 1244, 1247 (11th Cir. 2001). The IJ’s factual

findings bind us unless the record shows that “any reasonable adjudicator would be 

compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); INA 

§ 242(b)(4)(B). 

To qualify for withholding of removal, an alien must show that his “life or 

freedom would be threatened in that country because of the alien’s race, religion, 

 

the Attorney General either the existence of changed circumstances which materially affect the 

applicant’s eligibility for asylum or extraordinary circumstances relating to the delay in filing an 

application”).

6 See Chacon-Botero v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 427 F.3d 954, 957 (11th Cir. 2005) (holding 

that “8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) ‘divests our Court of jurisdiction to review a decision regarding 

whether an alien complied with the one-year time limit or established extraordinary 

circumstances that would excuse his untimely filing’” (quoting Mendoza v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 

327 F.3d 1283, 1287 (11th Cir. 2003))). 

7 The petitioners’ brief on appeal raises no arguments as to their entitlement to relief 

under CAT. Their brief mentions CAT a single time in the plea for relief on its final page. They

have therefore waived the argument that the IJ and BIA erred in denying them CAT relief. See

Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 681 (11th Cir. 2014) (“[A]n appellant 

abandons a claim when he either makes only passing references to it or raises it in a perfunctory 

manner without supporting arguments and authority.”).

8 We have jurisdiction to review this claim. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1); INA § 242(a)(1). 

Case: 17-15098 Date Filed: 07/16/2018 Page: 3 of 6 
4

nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 

U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A); INA § 241(b)(3)(A). The alien has the burden to show 

“more likely than not” that she will face persecution or torture upon return to the 

country in question based on one of these protected grounds. I.N.S. v. Stevic, 467 

U.S. 407, 424, 104 S. Ct. 2489, 2498 (1984); see Tan v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 446 

F.3d 1369, 1375 (11th Cir. 2006). To carry this burden, the alien must present 

“specific, detailed facts showing a good reason to fear that he will be singled out 

for persecution on account of” a protected ground. Ruiz v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 440 

F.3d 1247, 1258 (11th Cir. 2006) (quotation omitted). The alien, in other words, 

must show a nexus between the alleged persecution and a protected ground, not 

merely that she “has been the victim of criminal activity.” Id.

In this case, one of the petitioners, Maria Torres, operated a shoe stand at a 

flea market in Los Ocotes, Mexico. One day, men approached her claiming to be 

government officials. They demanded money from her for a permit to operate her

shoe stand. She gave them the money but never received a permit. In subsequent 

months, the purported government employees requested more money. Torres 

believed the men to be corrupt and so refused to pay. When Torres refused, the 

purported government officials threatened to kill her and her children. In one

incident, the men attempted to force open the door at her home. Torres called the 

Case: 17-15098 Date Filed: 07/16/2018 Page: 4 of 6 
5

police but they did not apprehend any suspects. She later filed a report of the 

incident at a police station.

These purported government officials also demanded money from other 

merchants at the flea market. The petitioners’ neighbor, who owned a business at 

the flea market, refused to pay the purported government officials and was found 

dead in her home. 

The record before us does not compel a conclusion that the petitioners’ 

alleged persecution was or would be on account of a protected ground. The 

evidence suggests that the purported government officials were motivated by 

financial gain. They demanded money upon a threat of violence. And they made 

similar demands on many of the merchants in the flea market. They were, in other 

words, common criminals in pursuant of fast cash. Indeed, as the IJ stated: “there 

does not appear to be any direct or circumstantial evidence that the two men that 

extorted the respondent in the flea market were motivated by [the] actual or 

perceived anticorruption beliefs [of Torres].” We see no reason to disturb this 

determination. 

In conclusion, the record does not support that the purported government 

officials acted out of animus based on one of the protected grounds. The IJ and 

BIA therefore made no error in denying the petitioners’ application for withholding 

of removal. 

Case: 17-15098 Date Filed: 07/16/2018 Page: 5 of 6 
6

PETITION DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

Case: 17-15098 Date Filed: 07/16/2018 Page: 6 of 6